Hacker News Reader

Comment by usea | Hacker News Reader

Most people drive at a speed that they deem to be safe. Conditions such as road shape and size, and traffic, are the biggest factors that influence this. If you want people to drive more slowly, you should first figure out why you want that. If you're still determined, then you should figure out why drivers believe those speeds to be safe on that road. Changing the road conditions will change the speed at which people drive.

View on HN

Most people drive at a speed at which they believe they are still in control of their vehicle.

We overestimate ourselves.

I mean, we're right 99.999% of the time.

The fact that perceived safe speed and real safe speed may differ is not relevant. If we want people to drive slower, what's important is the perceived safe speed.

What is relevant is that people have a perceived safe speed, and that this perceived safe speed is able to be influenced. Change the environment and you will change the driver.

Just compare the numbers of speed realted deaths between countries with good and bad roads.

People like to drive fast, no matter the environment.

The main thing that changed the death rates was progress in car safety.

Just look at the begin of car history. Bad roads, unsafe vehicles, lots of deaths.

I'm not suggesting to make poor quality roads. I am suggesting to not put up a 25mph sign on a road wide and straight enough to feel safe going 50mph. A main road near me is such a 2 lane road, 4 lanes widths wide, and is completely straight, but marked 25mph. It's no wonder most people go at least 10-15mph over. I do so unconsciously if I don't pay attention to the speedometer.

Some people are totally oblivious to whether they are safe or not and also reckless with the safety or other road users. This isn't some binary option there are far more factors at play than perceived safety. Even speed limiting cars on dangerous corners could have unforeseen safety implications in some situations.

The overestimation comes partially from the design of the road - for example wide open roads with many lanes feel safe to speed on. You can correct this perception by tightening lanes or adding trees etc.

They believe it's safe, because _they are_ safe in their modern SUVs. It's pedestrians, pets, bicyclists and other road users that they put at risk.

Nobody wants to hit pedestrians, pets, bicyclists, or other road users.

But we don't drive like that

Agreed.

About 30 minutes ago I watched a car make a left turn at a pedestrian in a high-vis vest.

Either nobody is paying attention, not looking around enough, or the safety features (that A pillar) blocks too much of the view for our own good.

You're trying to place blame on drivers of certain types of vehicles, and make a distinction between the behavior of those drivers and the "rest of us", putting them in an "other" category. This is misguided and ineffective.

Even people who drive small cars do so in a way that they believe to be safe. Even people who drove before "modern SUVs" existed did so in a way they believed to be safe. Drivers of SUVs are not the ones risking the lives of others, while the "rest of us" are being safe and responsible.

When car accidents are as common and tragic as they are, the fault isn't with individual drivers. Drivers try to drive safely, and generally do their best under the circumstances. They're just regular people, like all of us. The fault is with the system: road design, vehicle design, incentives (city design, etc), and education.

> You're trying to place blame on drivers of certain types of vehicles, and make a distinction between the behavior of those drivers and the "rest of us", putting them in an "other" category.

The behaviour of SUV drivers and non-SUV drivers can be exactly the same, but because of the sizes and masses involved with SUVs, the same event can cause much more damage when an SUV is involved.

* https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s...

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...

> When car accidents […]

The word "accident" has the connotation that the event(s) couldn't be helped but ((almost) had to) happen. There is growing evidence that this is false:

* https://www.vox.com/23016529/there-are-no-accidents-jessie-s...

Do a search on the phrase "crash not accident" for more on this.

Accident vs crash is a regional thing, not a implication that it was avoidable or unavoidable.

If anything, accidents are not intended though, even if avoidable in hindsight, and if it was, it's not an accident, but definitely a crime.

I'm not a big fan of speed limits and speed traps, but some people just have an mis-calibrated sense of what's safe. Heck, even if you're well intentioned, calibrating to "safe" yourself is very hard because hitting and killing a pedestrian even once in a lifetime is way too much.

The parent comment is acknowledging this. They're also admitting this is true for everyone... not just the people you think are bad drivers (everyone is a bad driver).

Speed traps don't actually enforce/fix this. They just make people unhappy.

If you want a street to feel "safe" for pedestrians, you have to make it feel "unsafe" for drivers, and make them think consciously about how they're driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com